Is there any correlation between temperature & CO2

History shows us that CO2 and temperature don't correlate at all.

Its a well known fact that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.

That is first temperature rises and then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere also rises as the eco systems warm up and release more CO2.

See below.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...les-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...les-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3


http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

(4).....Lately

 

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Surface temperature measurements are affected by short-term climate variability, and recent warming of deep oceans



Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.

There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).


"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):


"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time.

Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2.

The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:



The oceans absorb most of the heat from global warming

From Nuccitelli et.al (2012)

The way heat moves in the deep oceans is not well understood. Improvements in measurement techniques have allowed scientists to more accurately gauge the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing.

The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down.

The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

 

Sorry champ but empirical data shows otherwise to what the computer circulation models show, and that is,

The ARGO system consists of 3000 buoys all over the worlds oceans.

They dive down to 2000 metres and every two weeks they surface to relay the data which includes temperature.


Guess what..........???????.................Oceans aren't warming or the buoys would have detected it....!!!!!!!!!!

Just like weather balloons and satellite data cannot find the hot spot that the computer circulation models predict will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

In the old days the lack of real world observations compared to the IPCC computer circulation model predictions would have been enough to throw the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into the trash can where it belongs.

Of course today politics has entered this argument and science has gone down the toilet.

The bottom line is they want to tax the air we breath for ever, and create a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market, where again they will create technical booms and busts to rob nations of their wealth.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/

 

I am familiar with the ARGO data, and the newer measurement systems, and though the ARGO data is valuable, it is inadequate for deeper understanding of what is actually occurring. Though this paper is a bit to detailed, you might find it a good read:

"
[15] The time evolution of the global OHC for the period 1958–2009, as estimated by the ORAS4 ocean reanalysis, is dominated by a warming trend and pronounced cooling episodes, and shows an increasing warming trend at depths below 700 m. The cooling episodes correspond to cooling seen in SSTs in response to the El Chichón and Mt Pinatubo eruptions, and the radiative imbalance associated with the latter [Trenberth and Dai, 2007] is consistent with the cooling found here. More surprising is the extra cooling following 1998, a likely consequence of the ocean heat discharge associated with the massive 1997–1998 El Niño event [Trenberth et al., 2002]. Meehl et al. [2011] have demonstrated in a model study how La Niña events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers. This mechanism can also explain the increasing role of the depths below 700 m after 1999 in the ORAS4 OHC, consistent with La Niña-like conditions and a negative phase of the PDO which has dominated the last decade. The deep ocean warming, which mostly involves the depth range 700–2000 m, may also be related to the weakening of the MOC after 1995, which is present in ORAS4 [BMW13]. Possibly changes in MOC and PDO are connected through changes in the atmospheric circulation patterns.


[16] The deep ocean has continued to warm, while the upper 300 m OHC appears to have stabilized. The differences in recent trends among the different ocean layers are profound. The small warming in the upper 300 m is belied by the continuing warming for the ocean as a whole, with considerable warming occurring below 700 m. However, this raises the question of whether this result is simply because of the new Argo observing system? The results shown here suggest otherwise, although Argo clearly is vitally important quantitatively. Instead changes in surface winds play a major role, and although the exact nature of the wind influence still needs to be understood, the changes are consistent with the intensification of the trades in subtropical gyres. Another supporting factor is the uniqueness of the radiative forcing associated with global warming."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

 

Problem is, 30 years is half the oceanic circulation cycle, so using that period is effectively guaranteed to produce a biased result, as we saw in the AGW panic following the cycle's peak in 1998. Genuine climate science has to be based on integral numbers of ocean cycles: 60 years, 120 years, etc.

 

Nope. That's just Trenberth's stupid, dishonest garbage again. It's not even real empirical science, just an "observation-based" reanalysis of previous data. Those data did not show deep ocean warming, so Trenberth just ran them through a bunch of bad models until they did show deep ocean warming.

 

Correction not observation based. Model based.

He ran the atmospheric models output through an ocean circulation model and used that output to bias the observed data which has no trend. What he says is data that confirms the atmospheric models is just the output of the atmospheric modrls laundered through 2 steps. If you did this in the financial world you would go to jail.

Using an ocean model as a middleman for the atmospheric model is very similar to what Enron did using wholly owned subsidiaries as middleman to hold their debt.

The atmospheric models are showing a debt so he throws the debt into the ocean models where the sign flips and the debt becomes an asset. He then uses that asset to claim that the atmospheric models are in balance. Its exactly what Enron did.

its a game of three card monte. What you think is ocean data is actually an atmospheric model being fed through an ocean model. Its purely slight of hand.

 

I see the same issue reoccurring over and over and over...wannabe internet pseudo scientists thinking they understand the data and science but when you look at your analysis it's obvious you can't even interrupt the graphed data...you wanna pretend to be a rocket scientist but you can't even understand grade school level graphed data...

 

And of course you are so much smarter right ?

 

I never claimed that, it has nothing to do with being smart and everything to do with education...I can read/understand basic data graphs which I was taught grade school and some basic high school science...I was never science whiz in school but I know when particular claims made by some here are impossible according to accepted laws of science, these laws do not change, there are no exceptions...if you change the makeup of a mixture it's properties must change as well, there are no exceptions...raise the H2O(a GHG) content of the atmosphere and it will affect climate no one will ever argue against that, change the % of CO2(another GHG) in the atmosphere and it also MUST have an effect, like with H2O it can do nothing else...but yet there those who go into denial and imply CO2 is exempt from the laws of science...

 

Throwing a bucket of water into a lake must also have an effect on its volume too in terms of flooding . Its if that effect is of any consequence thats at issue and with CO 2 and our temperatures that has most certainly never been empirically established.

 

Ya know, I was waiting for a continuation or a follow-up post where you actually explain what he had wrong and how it should have been read.......

Guess that's not coming is it... SO you can't explain why he's wrong, or how he's wrong, or even prove he IS wrong, But that doesn't stop you from insulting him and claiming such anyway... Why not explain how or why he's wrong?

 

LOL, what "laws of science" state change in a given system, always results in the same type of measurable change? A change does not automatically mean "warmer".

Warmer faith/science has a convenient habit of mixing up energy and heat. Just as they portray their BS charts and graphs showing one thing but the headlines or title says another. Energy is not created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. Everything above absolute zero radiates some level of heat in the form of IR radiation, but that does not mean we can harness all that IR emitted all the time and everywhere. SO why do warmers assume; first that energy coming from the sun can be used to warm the surface, then warm the atmosphere and power the natural convective properties of that atmosphere,light the planet, and then be re-used by the atmosphere to warm the warmer surface even further?

If anything discussed here defies the laws of physics or as you called it "the laws of science", it would be that ridiculous concept. The effect would be a more rapid cooling by every observed real world experiment, but a computer simulation and some equations told them it could cause a net warming effect, so they believe that.. WHY? Because they are dedicated to computer models, and that's that.

 

here is your bucket - Mt Pinatubo eruption lowered world temps by 0.4c due to emissions of S02, 17 million tons

yearly anthropogenic emissions of CO2 amount to 32 BILLION tons...so according to you your "bucket" of SO2 17 million tons can change global temps(EMPIRICALLY established) but a far far larger amount of CO2 32 BILLION tons does nothing? ...plus S02 is short lived in the atmosphere several weeks whereas CO2 has a lifespan of decades/centuries ...SO2 rains out and CO2 is cumulative...and CO2 has been EMPIRICALLY established to be GHG, that's grade 10 chemistry you're in denial of...

if 17million tons of SO2 can lower world temps 0.4c for a year, 32 billion tons of CO2 absolutely will raise temps...

 

Totally different absorption rates.

 

Indeed. This is comparing apples with oranges

 

meaningless gibberish and an irrelevant dodge...floggers point was that anthropogenic CO2 was miniscule " a bucket of water into a lake" ...first there is a denial that CO2 is a GHG, then it's CO2 is exempt from all known laws of chemistry and physics and is neutral(it has no effect), followed by it's too miniscule "a bucket"...wrong in every instance...

 

you have no idea what you're talking about...or what lil mike is talking about(nor does lil mike)...the deniers want to pretend they know all about the climate change pretending to understand the more complex chemistry and physics but they don't even grasp the basics...

 

How does a thermos work again???

 

I'm not surprised that it's meaningless gibberish to you.

And I freely admit I'm just a layman. I'm not a scientist. But it's fairly obvious that you are far from one as well, otherwise you would have understood what I meant, Remember, this was the comment of yours I was referring to, "..if 17million tons of SO2 can lower world temps 0.4c for a year, 32 billion tons of CO2 absolutely will raise temps..." CO2 is a GHG, but it's far less of one than methane or water vapor. Comparing the world temperature changes of SO2 to CO2 is ridiculous, and that's coming from High School science knowledge. If you can't understand that, then you don't have even the most modest understanding to discuss this issue, let alone criticize anyone else on this thread on their scientific knowledge.

Get your science up to at least a high school level and come back.

 

LOL. How incredibly clueless. And you want to pretend that you know more than the professional scientists. LOL.

SO2 has no "absorption rate" at all. The sulfuric dioxide that volcanoes shoot high into the atmosphere combines with microscopic water droplets to form tiny sulfuric acid droplets that reflect sunlight back into space from high in the stratosphere, which produces a cooling effect on the Earth's surface.

CO2 permeates the atmosphere all the way from the surface to the stratosphere and it absorbs the longwave infrared radiation that the Earth emits and then re-radiates most of that energy in all directions, while the rest of that energy heats nearby atmospheric molecules through molecular vibration (thermal conduction), so a good part of that absorbed energy winds up heating the atmosphere and the Earth's land and ocean surfaces.

Two entirely different phenomena, about which you obviously have no understanding at all.

 

Sorry but that's not the case...

You have part of it right, but you are wrong in your claim that ; "SO2 has no "absorption rate" at all."

The truth is SO2 reflects some of the incoming solar energy and absorbs some of the energy coming from the earth. SO2 does have an absorption rate, all things have some form of absorption rates they just don't all respond to the same wavelengths of EM,even our most efficient mirrors are not perfect reflectors. It does reflect some and it absorbs some, depending on wave-length and most likely any number of other factors, both known and unknown right now.

 

Meanwhile, Dumbanddumber shows us that he doesn't know mathematics at all.
Correlation coefficient between atmospheric CO2 and temperature (annual, 1959-2012): 93%.
Correlation coefficient between atmospheric CO2 and temperature (decadal, 1960-2009): 98%.

Only in the fantasy world of climate deniers does 98% = 0.

That was a well-know fact two years ago. Today, it's a well-known fact that CO2 lags temperature by 620 ±660 years in the southern hemisphere, and CO2 leads temperature by 720 ±330 years in the northern hemisphere. For the global average, CO2 leads temperature by 460 ±320 years. See Shakun et. al. 2012. Earlier studies were biased by using only Antarctic ice core records.

Or, just see this figure:



... which looks like a pretty good correlation to me.